I don't waver, I look at all of the information available from as many angles as possible, and don't pretend to have all of the answers either. Usually I have more questions than answers. I'll defer to you as the king of the moving goalposts.

Then explain to me how your criteria keeps changing depending on whether you are comparing to Bourque or you are comparing to Harvey and Orr.

Quote:

Well you are one to talk about team strength, it's not like Harvey was playing on average teams. The point was that Lidstrom was getting recognition before Harvey was and against kick ass competition to boot.

I talk about team strength when it's vastly different between two players and weigh it accordingly. It has not place in a conversation about Harvey and Lidstrom.
And saying Lidstrom got "recognized" due to receiving a single Norris vote....

Quote:

Yes I have seen the clips and Harvey had a great skillset but seriously the level of play wasn't an all time high then either so I take the hyperbole and exaggeration with a grain of salt and put it into context. Ditto for Lidstrom he wasn't "perfect."

The level of play was the highest in the world at the time.
Faulting a player for being born in 1924 instead of 1970 or 1990 aint going to get you any where.
I believe there is even sticky about this kind of ******** around here

Quote:

No one said he was, didn't you read my posts?

So what was the point of you mentioning it, if it had nothing to with Lidstrom?

Quote:

The typical straw man, I'd like you to actually read the posts, I stated in his 1st 3 years that he was a top 20 Dman in the league. No mention that he was a Norris winner and robbed.

Top 30...maybe and being robbed by Blake is an opinion, as is Weber getting robbed in '11 sooo....
One thing I will say though, is that the opinion of Weber being robbed in '11 is a lot "stronger" than the opinion that Lidstrom was robbed in '98.

Quote:

Seriously anyone confusing Coffey and Lidstroms defensive play at any time is a joke.

With Lidstrom after '97, definitely, previous that...not so much. Not a joke anyway, only in your revisionist world.

Quote:

I didn't compare Harvey and Lidstroms totals to each other I compared them to their piers. Either you can't read or were too busy writing your preconceived notions of what you thought I said, either way you are wrong here.

Lidstroms offensive contributions and plus minus in the playoffs from 92-12 is simply world class and at a higher level against his peers than Harvey period.

I will list them again here for you.

Here is how he ranked among all players not just Dmen

1st in GP
2nd in points
5th in goals
1st in assists
1st in plus/minus

All of this and he is known more for his defense than offense.

I thought Lidstrom should be rated above Harvey when we did the top 60 project and I'm even more clear on that thought now.

The facts of the matter support this opinion as well I think and that even before we get into any discussion about the level of play and competition levels in the NHL during the 2 different times.

Hahaha you took Lidstrom's 20 years in the league and gauged everyone against just THOSE years.

First of all, if you are doing those numbers against all players and not just D-men, it should read...

The only reason Lidstrom's offense looks so good is because he wasn't up against a very good class or very consistent group of offensively gifted D-men.

The argument used to be that Lidstrom's offense was the best anyone's could be in today's PP oriented league. That it was no longer possible for a D-man to be successful at even strength offensively like Leetch or Bourque or Coffey was.

Enter stage left...Erik Karlsson, who put up 35% more even strength points last year than Lidstrom did in his best year.
Proving that it's not that it wasn't possible, just that there weren't any D-men playing that were capable of doing it in the league any more.

The argument used to be that Lidstrom's offense was the best anyone's could be in today's PP oriented league. That it was no longer possible for a D-man to be successful at even strength offensively like Leetch or Bourque or Coffey was.

Enter stage left...Erik Karlsson, who put up 35% more even strength points last year than Lidstrom did in his best year.
Proving that it's not that it wasn't possible, just that there weren't any D-men playing that were capable of doing it in the league any more.

Bingo. Though I do think Lidstrom could have produced more at even-strength at the sacrifice of his defensive play. He wasn't as good at finding the balance as Bourque though (see the 1996 Western Conference Finals - and if you don't have it on VHS like me, I know it's on NHL Vault now). Thankfully for him, he wasn't on a team that required him to take as many risks.

I'm not going to get into the whole Lidstrom thing much more than that anymore. I know how each poster on here feels about him, but I've watched way too many Detroit Red Wings game to buy into the perception that Lidstrom is a top-ten skater, the best European player, or even simply as good as Ray Bourque. He's in the Sakic/Brodeur range - not the Bourque/Roy range.

Then explain to me how your criteria keeps changing depending on whether you are comparing to Bourque or you are comparing to Harvey and Orr.

My criteria is always the same, i look at as much information from as many different points of view as possible when evaluating players

Quote:

I talk about team strength when it's vastly different between two players and weigh it accordingly. It has not place in a conversation about Harvey and Lidstrom.
And saying Lidstrom got "recognized" due to receiving a single Norris vote....

Read below, its from from OP and includes everything that Lidstrom did before Harvey gets a mention with his 2nd to Kelly in 52. Harvey played in 4 seasons in the NHL up to and including his age 26 season.

Below is what Lidstrom did the same age and younger,

6 NHL seasons which includes

In his 1st season in 92 he is in the mix for the Calder (probably should have won it) and was 8th in all star voting for Dmen.

93(22) He suffers a bit of the sophomore slump.

94 (23) He has one vote placing him 20th overall for an all star berth

95 (24) Doesn't figure in Norris or all-star voting due in part to shortened season and limited voting.

Still overall in his 1st 3 years he has been pretty productive and has been during that stretch at least one of the top 20 Dmen overall IMO.

97 (26) he places 6th in Norris and all star voting again behind Leetch, Vlad, Sandis Ozolinsh, Chelios and Scott Stevens (only 1 Canadian this year)

That's part of his record.

Quote:

The level of play was the highest in the world at the time.
Faulting a player for being born in 1924 instead of 1970 or 1990 aint going to get you any where.
I believe there is even sticky about this kind of ******** around here

Okay suspicion confirmed that you treat each era as the same which it clearly isn't.

The sticky has nothing to do with how one compares to ones peers and what that peer group is like and consists of.

Quote:

Top 30...maybe and being robbed by Blake is an opinion, as is Weber getting robbed in '11 sooo....
One thing I will say though, is that the opinion of Weber being robbed in '11 is a lot "stronger" than the opinion that Lidstrom was robbed in '98.

Both Lidstrom and Weber were in the mix and would ahve been worthy winners of the Norris, the voting was extremely close in both cases. Weber gets robbed in 12 as well but I will get to that later.

Quote:

With Lidstrom after '97, definitely, previous that...not so much. Not a joke anyway, only in your revisionist world.

So I guess the voters for Norris were wrong in 96 and 97 when Nick was 6th in voting for the Norris? Maybe it was his highlight reel that confused the voters right?

You aren't going to get alot of support claiming that Coffey was near as good as Lidstrom defensively at any point in his career period.

Quote:

Hahaha you took Lidstrom's 20 years in the league and gauged everyone against just THOSE years.

Well it's one way of looking how a player stacks up in his career and I took the playoffs as the example as I did an in depth comparison of Norris voting between Harvey and Lidstrom for the regular seasons.

I could have mentioned how Lidstrom stacked up to Harvey all time in points ect but that would ahve been unfair since there eras were vastly different right?

Quote:

First of all, if you are doing those numbers against all players and not just D-men, it should read...

The only reason Lidstrom's offense looks so good is because he wasn't up against a very good class or very consistent group of offensively gifted D-men.

Both Leetch and bourque are better offensively than Lidstrom. Why didn't you post how Harvey stacks up in the regular season since that was the original comp?

Quote:

The argument used to be that Lidstrom's offense was the best anyone's could be in today's PP oriented league. That it was no longer possible for a D-man to be successful at even strength offensively like Leetch or Bourque or Coffey was.

Do you see the column PP% and how it is generally lower in the time that Bourque and Coffey played in compared to Lidstrom?

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Quote:

Enter stage left...Erik Karlsson, who put up 35% more even strength points last year than Lidstrom did in his best year.
Proving that it's not that it wasn't possible, just that there weren't any D-men playing that were capable of doing it in the league any more.

Oh yes the one season where Letang is injured, Pronger as well, so is Big Buff.

Not to mention were scoring was lower in the more defensive Western conference and the unbalanced schedules as well.

One player in the Western conference was in the top 11 of scoring overall, I guess the superior talent is in the east right?

If Karlsson does it again, heck even by 25% and plays more than 7th on his on team for Dman PK, then you might be onto something until then it's a perfect storm unlikely to repeat itself even if Karlsson remains a last resort on the PK.

My criteria is always the same, i look at as much information from as many different points of view as possible when evaluating players

But it's clearly not.
Every reason you have and cite for why you believe Lidstrom should be ahead of Orr and Harvey, Lidstrom is behind on vs Bourque.

Quote:

Read below, its from from OP and includes everything that Lidstrom did before Harvey gets a mention with his 2nd to Kelly in 52. Harvey played in 4 seasons in the NHL up to and including his age 26 season.

Below is what Lidstrom did the same age and younger,

6 NHL seasons which includes

In his 1st season in 92 he is in the mix for the Calder (probably should have won it) and was 8th in all star voting for Dmen.

93(22) He suffers a bit of the sophomore slump.

94 (23) He has one vote placing him 20th overall for an all star berth

95 (24) Doesn't figure in Norris or all-star voting due in part to shortened season and limited voting.

Still overall in his 1st 3 years he has been pretty productive and has been during that stretch at least one of the top 20 Dmen overall IMO.

Funny, that looks like 4 seasons you just went through before Lidstrom really got noticed. Just like Harvey.

97 (26) he places 6th in Norris and all star voting again behind Leetch, Vlad, Sandis Ozolinsh, Chelios and Scott Stevens (only 1 Canadian this year)

That's part of his record.

You'll have to excuse me if I find your sudden ability to count all-star births a little...surprising.
So...your argument is that Lidstrom was recognized to be better earlier than Harvey.
So if I were to say...go back in the Bourque vs Lidstrom thread, what responses do you think I will find from you about Bourque's actual Calder, 19 All-star nods and 19 top 4 Norris finishes?
I KNOW what I will find, I'm just asking if you know?

Quote:

Okay suspicion confirmed that you treat each era as the same which it clearly isn't.

I treat each player as playing in the best league possible at the time they played.

Quote:

The sticky has nothing to do with how one compares to ones peers and what that peer group is like and consists of.

And if you stuck to simply peer vs peer comparisons, it wouldn't be an issue.

Quote:

Both Lidstrom and Weber were in the mix and would have been worthy winners of the Norris, the voting was extremely close in both cases. Weber gets robbed in 12 as well but I will get to that later.

So I guess the voters for Norris were wrong in 96 and 97 when Nick was 6th in voting for the Norris? Maybe it was his highlight reel that confused the voters right?

You aren't going to get alot of support claiming that Coffey was near as good as Lidstrom defensively at any point in his career period.

No, nor would I expect to.
I was simply stating that Lidstrom had not separated himself defensively yet by any where near the degree your revisionist history is making out.

Quote:

Well it's one way of looking how a player stacks up in his career and I took the playoffs as the example as I did an in depth comparison of Norris voting between Harvey and Lidstrom for the regular seasons.

I could have mentioned how Lidstrom stacked up to Harvey all time in points ect but that would ahve been unfair since there eras were vastly different right?

Both Leetch and bourque are better offensively than Lidstrom. Why didn't you post how Harvey stacks up in the regular season since that was the original comp?

Heh dude, the only thing I was pointing out was how ridiculous and biased the way you laid out those stats was.
Unless every other player you're including in that list played the exact seasons or played all of their season within that threshold, it's simply not going to be a fair comparison.

Do you see the column PP% and how it is generally lower in the time that Bourque and Coffey played in compared to Lidstrom?

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Right back at ya.
I have no idea what PP%'s and less opportunities today have to do with Even Strength scoring.

Quote:

Oh yes the one season where Letang is injured, Pronger as well, so is Big Buff.

Even with how well Letang was playing offensively last season, he was only on pace for 40ES points, which btw, would have also been more than Lidstrom ever had in a season and would have matched the highest total since Leetch, Bourque and Coffey. That being Green a few years ago.
Big Buff's ES totals as a D-man was 29 in 81 games in 10/11 and he was on pace for 40 last season.

Quote:

Not to mention were scoring was lower in the more defensive Western conference and the unbalanced schedules as well.

One player in the Western conference was in the top 11 of scoring overall, I guess the superior talent is in the east right?

Careful, I will turn around and use this exact argument for Bourque while playing in the much stingier East in the 80's and early 90's.
I'll leave it up to you as to how much credence you truly want to make of this

Quote:

If Karlsson does it again, heck even by 25% and plays more than 7th on his on team for Dman PK, then you might be onto something until then it's a perfect storm unlikely to repeat itself even if Karlsson remains a last resort on the PK.

I'm kind of failing to see what playing on the PK has to do with Even Strength or PP scoring

I think it's fair to say that, whatever degree the talent pool has increased by, the number of players of qualities x, y, and z have increased proportionally. But that can't be applied to the geniuses and outlier players. There is no guarantee that if one generation produces one, that a generation three times the size will produce three.

True, but odds are a bit bigger that it will happen. But the problem is not even with outliers.

Odds are a lot bigger that your average elite player is better. Same player against whom that genius (outlier) competes game in and game out.

Quote:

You keep bringing up the poor competition in the 70s, but you ignore that Orr dominated the other elite players in the league to a greater degree than anyone else did.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Degree of Orr domination and his competition are connected. Put a similar genius like Orr into 80s-90s and degree of his domination is smaller, because competition is stronger. Is that new genius somehow worse than Orr?

IMHO nobody can't ignore the odds that your average top5/top10/top20 player will be better with increased talent pool. So that means outlier will dominate to a lesser degree.

It's simply logic and math. And totally throwing it out of the window is simply ignorant.

What you originally said was that the talent pool has at least quintupled. Pretty sure I didn't misunderstand your saying that.

I never stated the talent pool increased 5 times as fact. I'm tossing out an estimate but it could be anywhere from 3 to 6 times in my opinion. You've apparently researched and certainly done a lot of cross era comparisons so what has your estimate been? Surely you must have considered this in your comparisons and thought about how it would affect elite competition. Please let me know your estimate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey

Have I, or anyone else here, said it hasn't increased at all?

Again, please share your thoughts on this then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey

Here are some numbers that ARE relevant.

Players in the NHL
Canada 52.4%
Europe 28.1%
USA 19.5%

2012 Draftees
Canada 47.4%
Europe 27%
USA 25.6%

Of course there are some NHL-quality players in European leagues as well, which would tilt those numbers a little.

I'm glad you shared some RELEVANT numbers. In the '59-60 NHL season there were 138 Canadians, 2 Americans, and 1 Welsh and 1 Czech, who I assume were both raised in Canada. I don't have to break down these numbers any further. All else being equal, with the NHL being a 50/50 split between Canadians and non-Canadians now that would mean the RELEVANT NHL talent pool has increased 2X since 1960 and that is with assuming the Canadian talent pool hasn't increased at all since 1960. It's extremely unlikely that the Canadian talent pool hasn't increased since 1960 and anyone who claims it hasn't is being really foolish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey

This forum has a handy, under-utilized search feature. You are free to find the relevant threads yourself rather than asking me to do it for you.

You don't remember any key counter arguments at all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey

Straw-manning your opponents isn't going to help you in a forum where the majority are already well familiar with the lines of argument.

You refuse to estimate on the talent pool change and have really only offered up empty denial. It's time you stopped dancing around this.

I'm glad you shared some RELEVANT numbers. In the '59-60 NHL season there were 138 Canadians, 2 Americans, and 1 Welsh and 1 Czech, who I assume were both raised in Canada. I don't have to break down these numbers any further. All else being equal, with the NHL being a 50/50 split between Canadians and non-Canadians now that would mean the RELEVANT NHL talent pool has increased 2X since 1960 and that is with assuming the Canadian talent pool hasn't increased at all since 1960. It's extremely unlikely that the Canadian talent pool hasn't increased since 1960 and anyone who claims it hasn't is being really foolish.

What evidence is there that the talent pool has increased or decreased? How do we quantify the talent pool? I'm honestly asking if theres been some research into this.

I think it's fair to say that, whatever degree the talent pool has increased by, the number of players of qualities x, y, and z have increased proportionally. But that can't be applied to the geniuses and outlier players. There is no guarantee that if one generation produces one, that a generation three times the size will produce three.

You can refer to them as geniuses and outliers but really what they were is the best player at their position for an extended period of time. I agree there is no guarentee that a generation produces two Harvey's or two Lidstrom's based on a doubling of the talent pool but there is also no guarentee that it doesn't produce 3 or 4 either. The only proof we have either way is the eye test and that is extremely subjective. We don't know what a Shea Weber or Chara would do if they were brought up to play in the NHL of 1960.

Which of course leads us to the other top players after the genius/outlier, or what I simply refer to is the best player at that position for an extended period of time. You originally brought up Harvey's more dominant Norris voting record over Lidstrom's. You must be able to see that even if the talent pool only doubled between these two era's, which I believe is very generous towards 1960 era NHL, then there is more than likely more players who can challenge that top dog. What does Harvey's better Norris voting dominance really mean?? It just leaves me with more questions, not the certainly people around here pretend to portray.

No, but you said it was "probably about right". Presumably that means you believe 5x to be an accurate estimate?

Quote:

You've apparently researched and certainly done a lot of cross era comparisons so what has your estimate been? Surely you must have considered this in your comparisons and thought about how it would affect elite competition. Please let me know your estimate.

I think it's actually wavered over time.

Let's take 1960 as our 1x.

Very roughly speaking, I think we hit something like 3-4x by the mid-1990s. From what I have seen, hockey was virtually universal among Canadian boys in the mid-1970s when those players were born, so the upper-class-ization of the sport was less of an issue for that generation. Russia was probably coming off its peak at that time, Sweden was in its Forsberg/Sundin/Naslund/Lidstrom phase, and the USA was producing elite talent at about the same rate it does today. Also, the former Czechoslovakia was producing talent at a rate it no longer matches. On top of all that, there was no competition to speak of from overseas leagues. If we take into account the excellent aging of the 1980s classes, which featured at least 4 players who are all-time top-3 in their positions, we can probably pin down "Peak Talent" somewhere around 1996. And that's not just nostalgia speaking -- go back and look at NHL rosters from that season. Nearly all teams were built around one or more Hall of Famers, and some were just flush to the gills with talent. Look at the All Star Team rosters. The difference in across-the-board eliteness between then and now is noticeable.

Today I think we're back at 3x, maybe even a little lower. Canadians aren't playing the game at the same rate any more, and fewer elite Canadian talents stick with hockey after childhood. American talent has grown, but mostly in expansion markets which are just starting to produce real talent. The Russian program is a ghost, the Slovaks virtually non-existent. The Czechs have declined. Sweden and Finland are still where they used to be. And, maybe even more important, virtually every major talent from Lindros to Crosby has been injury-plagued or inconsistent. The league is no longer producing Gretzkys and Bourques who dominate for 15+ years without a break. Expansion has spread the remaining talent too thin, to the point that a team like Pittsburgh is seen as "stacked" because they managed to get three good centers, an above-average top defenseman and a competent goalie. Compare them to the "stacked" 1996 Red Wings, it's really not close. I'll give this league the benefit of the doubt and say 3x, but my suspicion is that it's worse than we think. A lot of the deficiencies are covered up by increases in technology -- better skates, lighter sticks that make these guys look a little better against their predecessors than they probably deserve.

Quote:

You don't remember any key counter arguments at all?

We're already going through them. What we're talking about has been discussed in greater detail before (the country-by-country breakdown, for example). I'm just telling you that the information is on this website if you want it.

Quote:

You refuse to estimate on the talent pool change and have really only offered up empty denial. It's time you stopped dancing around this.

Enter stage left...Erik Karlsson, who put up 35% more even strength points last year than Lidstrom did in his best year.
Proving that it's not that it wasn't possible, just that there weren't any D-men playing that were capable of doing it in the league any more.

It has nothing to do with being capable most defensemen are in systems that are pretty strict defensively while Ottawa has basically built their team around having Erik Karlssons offense (He has imporved defensively but its nowhere near Lidströms).

Unfortunately, there is not a lot of data for this and therefore people don't get very far if they try to research about the growth of the talent pool.

However, hockey has certainly continued to grow as a sport and population sure isn't declining.

Still hockey is effectively a two continent sport - NA (only 2 of 23 countries contribute) and Europe(maybe 12 of the app 50 countries contribute). This is being generous since most countries from both continents do not contribute NHL hockey players.

NA and Europe rank 4th and 3rd in terms of continental population out of all the continents.

From 1951 thru 2011 Canada's population went from just over 14,000,000 to app 34, 275,000 or app a 2.5 growth rate

2010-11 NHL season featured 482 Canadian skaters and 42 goalies.Adjusting for roster size and the tandem goal system this is the equivalent of 30 teams of 16 skaters and 1 goalie with 12 goalies left over in 1951 terms. So in terms of producing NHL players the Canadian population has outperformed the population growth. Plus the same population is a major contributor to stocking the various minor leagues in NA, the CHL, European leagues, NCAA hockey programs, etc.

The world population is not declining but it is not hockey friendly either nor is it performing at the level Canada is in producing professional or potential professional players.

As for the actual number of Canadiens playing hockey in 1951 or 1961 or points before or after, it does not matter since there is no link between population growth and the production of NHL hockey players by a country. The above clearly showed this. What matters is year round access to facilities and coaching.

No, but you said it was "probably about right". Presumably that means you believe 5x to be an accurate estimate?

Yes, my estimate is 5X, but it I'll admit it could be 4X, and possibly as high as 6X. No one can say for sure and we are all just estimating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey

I think it's actually wavered over time.

Let's take 1960 as our 1x.

Very roughly speaking, I think we hit something like 3-4x by the mid-1990s. From what I have seen, hockey was virtually universal among Canadian boys in the mid-1970s when those players were born, so the upper-class-ization of the sport was less of an issue for that generation. Russia was probably coming off its peak at that time, Sweden was in its Forsberg/Sundin/Naslund/Lidstrom phase, and the USA was producing elite talent at about the same rate it does today. Also, the former Czechoslovakia was producing talent at a rate it no longer matches. On top of all that, there was no competition to speak of from overseas leagues. If we take into account the excellent aging of the 1980s classes, which featured at least 4 players who are all-time top-3 in their positions, we can probably pin down "Peak Talent" somewhere around 1996. And that's not just nostalgia speaking -- go back and look at NHL rosters from that season. Nearly all teams were built around one or more Hall of Famers, and some were just flush to the gills with talent. Look at the All Star Team rosters. The difference in across-the-board eliteness between then and now is noticeable.

Today I think we're back at 3x, maybe even a little lower. Canadians aren't playing the game at the same rate any more, and fewer elite Canadian talents stick with hockey after childhood. American talent has grown, but mostly in expansion markets which are just starting to produce real talent. The Russian program is a ghost, the Slovaks virtually non-existent. The Czechs have declined. Sweden and Finland are still where they used to be. And, maybe even more important, virtually every major talent from Lindros to Crosby has been injury-plagued or inconsistent. The league is no longer producing Gretzkys and Bourques who dominate for 15+ years without a break. Expansion has spread the remaining talent too thin, to the point that a team like Pittsburgh is seen as "stacked" because they managed to get three good centers, an above-average top defenseman and a competent goalie. Compare them to the "stacked" 1996 Red Wings, it's really not close. I'll give this league the benefit of the doubt and say 3x, but my suspicion is that it's worse than we think. A lot of the deficiencies are covered up by increases in technology -- better skates, lighter sticks that make these guys look a little better against their predecessors than they probably deserve.

Whether it's 3X or 4X it's difficult to rank Harvey above Lidstrom due to this. They are very close in terms of the type of careers they had and their dominance over their peers, yet Lidstrom dealt with a much deeper talent pool. You seem to agree with this so is your only reason for placing Harvey higher because he came first?

Russia is a "ghost" that won the WJC in 2011, came 2nd last year and have produced recent talents like Malkin, Ovechkin and Datsyuk. I wish I could watch KHL games during the lockout but don't have time because they have some great talent in that league.

Sweden won the WJC last year, which was the first time in 31 years, and are producing lots of great young players. The SEL is another very strong league outside the NHL.

The American program is better and larger than it ever was in the past.

Say what you want about Pierre McQuire but he constantly states that these young players coming up are far better than when he was coaching in the NHL. I see it myself when I play hockey and these kids come out with us. Most of them are upper middle class but they have amazing skill sets and probably won't even make it to the NHL. I don't think there is a legitimate case for saying hockey is on the decline in Canada. It may be more spread out and less available to the lower middle class but the kids that are being produced are fantastic. The only problem is it's hard to stand out when everyone can play at such a high level and are so serious about training.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey

All you had to do was ask.

This was the topic so why should I have to ask? Why discuss something without giving your own opinion until I beg for it?

As for the actual number of Canadiens playing hockey in 1951 or 1961 or points before or after, it does not matter since there is no link between population growth and the production of NHL hockey players by a country. The above clearly showed this. What matters is year round access to facilities and coaching.

You have not clearly shown anything as your guess is as good as mine.

In 1960, were there as many rinks that were open year round as now?

In 1960, did players train for hockey during the summer months like they do now?

Hockey must be in huge trouble in Canada if the population has nearly doubled since 1960 but hockey has been stagnant. Sorry, I don't buy it and don't see that around me. Not only has hockey grown due to growing families that were in Canada in 1960 but 1st and 2nd generation Canadians are latching on to the sport as well and some have even made it to the NHL.

In 1960, did players train for hockey during the summer months like they do now?

Hockey must be in huge trouble in Canada if the population has nearly doubled since 1960 but hockey has been stagnant. Sorry, I don't buy it and don't see that around me. Not only has hockey grown due to growing families that were in Canada in 1960 but 1st and 2nd generation Canadians are latching on to the sport as well and some have even made it to the NHL.

You are guessing. I am not.

1960, no Canadian arenas were offering ice 12 months of the year. Maybe end of August to end of May at the extreme.Usually mid September to mid April. Still the case today for the municipal or community venues.

Obviously without arenas they could not skate year round. Most of the training consisted of playing other sports. Yvan Cournoyer was a recruited shortstop, others played football or were multi-sport athletes. Doug Harvey played football, baseball well enough to draw pro interest, plus soccer.

Canada has started producing great hockey players again - once they got away from the size focus. The first and second generation quote is very familiar.

1960, no Canadian arenas were offering ice 12 months of the year. Maybe end of August to end of May at the extreme.Usually mid September to mid April. Still the case today for the municipal or community venues.

Obviously without arenas they could not skate year round. Most of the training consisted of playing other sports. Yvan Cournoyer was a recruited shortstop, others played football or were multi-sport athletes. Doug Harvey played football, baseball well enough to draw pro interest, plus soccer.

Canada has started producing great hockey players again - once they got away from the size focus. The first and second generation quote is very familiar.

I've played at 3 different facilities that are open during the summer in Toronto. One is a single rink, another has 4 rinks and the other has 6 rinks. That's only where I have actually played.

Even when everyone was looking for size Canada still produced some great players. They just had to prove themselves more if they were small.

Are the facilities 100% publically owned or are they privately owned facilities or a blend?

Probably a blend but does it really matter? People are playing hockey year round if they want to and have the money to do so. Do a quick google search of "Toronto year round arena" and you will come up with far more than the 3 I mentioned. The 3 I mentioned actually don't even appear in the first page of results.

There are also summer hockey schools, summer training programs, etc. Some of the guys I've played with even mention they've seen the Stamkos' of the world play 3 on 3 hockey in the Toronto area during the summer.

It has nothing to do with being capable most defensemen are in systems that are pretty strict defensively while Ottawa has basically built their team around having Erik Karlssons offense (He has imporved defensively but its nowhere near Lidströms).

And your point is what exactly?
Did the Pens build their team around Crosby?
Did the Oilers build around Gretzky?
Did the Bruins build around Orr?
Did the Wings build around Yzerman?
Did the Caps build around OV?
Did the Bruins build around Bourque?

When you have a superior offensive talent, you build around him. Teams have been doing that for over a century now.

And who is saying that Karlsson is as good defensively as Lidstrom?
I will say one thing though, revisionism aside, I don't think Karlsson is all that far behind a 21-22 year old Lidstrom defensively.
Or did you forget that he was only 21 last year?

In the 30 or so games, including playoffs, that I saw of Karlsson last year, I was actually pretty surprised at how responsible he was defensively, how well he plays one on one and how well he manages risk management.
That's pretty damned special in such a young player.

His play style reminds me a lot of Bourque. Great puck possession and uses a lot of give and goes.
The scariest part about Karlsson is that he is still learning how to be a good PP QB and he still has a lot of room to improve in that area.
He overall point totals are only going to go up IMO.

And your point is what exactly?
Did the Pens build their team around Crosby?
Did the Oilers build around Gretzky?
Did the Bruins build around Orr?
Did the Wings build around Yzerman?
Did the Caps build around OV?
Did the Bruins build around Bourque?

When you have a superior offensive talent, you build around him. Teams have been doing that for over a century now.

And who is saying that Karlsson is as good defensively as Lidstrom?
I will say one thing though, revisionism aside, I don't think Karlsson is all that far behind a 21-22 year old Lidstrom defensively.

In the 30 or so games, including playoffs, that I saw of Karlsson last year, I was actually pretty surprised at how responsible he was defensively and how well he plays one on one.

Actually no, Penguins didnt build around Crosby or Lemieux. They've been trying to build around Crosby but their team was actually built around them having Crosby-Malkin-Staal.

When Karlsson came up he was surrounded with teammates to utilize his offense (yes he is great offensively). This is what happens when you stop suffocating young defensemen like they did to Niedermeyer, Tverdovsky etc in the DPE.

But my guess is that you know what I mean but it doesnt fit in to your whole "Lidström is overrated"-angle you spew in every possible thread. Lets just leave it before this thread becomes another one.

Probably a blend but does it really matter? People are playing hockey year round if they want to and have the money to do so. Do a quick google search of "Toronto year round arena" and you will come up with far more than the 3 I mentioned. The 3 I mentioned actually don't even appear in the first page of results.

There are also summer hockey schools, summer training programs, etc. Some of the guys I've played with even mention they've seen the Stamkos' of the world play 3 on 3 hockey in the Toronto area during the summer.

Hockey in Canada is not Toronto centric so it does matter. Municipal or government run arenas rely on public funding and unionized government employees to operate.

Small community arenas have to provide a wide range of services beyond hockey so they still close during the off season to service the non-hockey constituents.

Hockey in Canada is not Toronto centric so it does matter. Municipal or government run arenas rely on public funding and unionized government employees to operate.

Small community arenas have to provide a wide range of services beyond hockey so they still close during the off season to service the non-hockey constituents.

Do the same google search for Manitoba, Alberta, etc. There are year round rinks in a lot of places now and people are playing hockey during the summer.

I grew up in a small town and the more fortunate kids played summer hockey or attended summer hockey camps in the larger towns and cities nearby.

Besides, about 80% of Canada's population now live in urban areas anyways. Those "urban" areas are often near a larger city that does have a year round rink. The option is at least there now and many young players are fortunate enough to take advantage of it. If your son shows potential to make the NHL at an early age and loves hockey, if you could manage it wouldn't you pay to get him additinional icetime during the summer? That's what many people are doing.

But my guess is that you know what I mean but it doesnt fit in to your whole "Lidström is overrated"-angle you spew in every possible thread. Lets just leave it before this thread becomes another one.

Why does everything have to be an "angle"? Why can't people simply disagree without accusing each other of having an agenda in these projects? We discuss hockey here; are we supposed to roll-over every time we disagree with the status quo? No one is spewing anything.